Member Info for Feeks

You are a better person than I. I couldn't make any sense of that site:

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/

That seems to be the whole point of the Samsung case on this claim. It uses the expression "emulsion" - but Nanoco says it doesn't do what it says on the tin as there is no emulsion (!). Pretty sure I am over simplifying this, I need to read it again slowly. However, I am greatly encouraged so far.

""this isn’t a barkeeper mixing ****tails FFS. "

LOL

Not entirely sure that I agree on the Emulsion argument being weak for Nanoco. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner *. Samsung are obviously putting a great deal of emphasis on the use of a word or label, but as the Nanaco lawyer pointed out, this is not the factual embodiment and the key claim also refers to "mixture" not emulsion. So Samsung's case seems to me more about semantics and less about the substance. To my mind that argument is not convincing.

* Arguments claiming prior art are used in defending and attacking patent validity. In one U.S. case on the issue, the court said:

One attacking the validity of a patent must present clear and convincing evidence establishing facts that lead to the legal conclusion of invalidity. 35 U.S.C. § 282. To establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, certain factual predicates are required before the legal conclusion of obviousness or nonobviousness can be reached. The underlying factual determinations to be made are:

(1) the scope and content of the prior art;(2) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art;(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and(4) objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results.

—?Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

Thank you Nanonano, a very interesting link. It will be very interesting to see the share price action next week as this information sinks in with those who can really understand the science.

To someone who knows their way around the documents on the patent trial, there have been some useful links posted in relation to cetain key court documents, including transcripts from the recent PTAB hearing, slideshow presentation and prior to all that, the court claim construction hearing. Is there someone who is willing and able to re-post those links in reply to this message.? Thanks in advance. Feeks.

Thank you amerloque. I've been right about Nanoco a lot of times buying and selling but generally I am holding for the long term. I really think Nanoco ouleld be another ARM. Doesnt mean I am right this time as i have been wrong about a lot of other shares in the past but not being on AIM gives me confidence we can trust the Directors.

Interesting you day that the late evidence point arises. One thing you can invariably not do in legal trials like this is submit late evidence to bolster a case that should have been made out at the beginning - tantamount to an abuse of process, and that evidence could end up being rejected by the judge.

Let's not forget folks that Nanoco prepared a year for this case before deciding to go ahead with it. It probably means the case is way better prepared than Samsung's, and we would not even be here if the case was a total dud.

They can make £100m of annual recurring revenues out of Runcorn. It only needs a contract.

Me too, about 10 mins ago with a further 50,000 and a 25,000 purchase. GLA

I agree. it is what the company has stated. They cannot control timing but I believe them and I have my money where my mouth is. My biggest stock holding by far.

Who else spotted this...... ;-)

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2021/10/st-to-start-quantum-dot-image-sensor.html

Why on earth would they take a placement now when they took a £3m loan last time around whilst giving the specific reason for that, "the shares are significantly undervalued" and a placing not in the company's best interests.

Again to correct the confusion here :

The council does not face liability for costs simply for voting against their officer's advice. Anyone basing their investment decision on that issue should think again

I put it down to investor nervousness over the outcome of the court case. I am in it to win it. We only need one patent claim to survive the PTAB process.

You got your wish krull. I imagine a few of the BB rampers are actually selling before the decision after all

You seem pretty sure of yourself so please tell me then, on what basis do you suppose the council will be liable for the appeal costs?

My very quick review of the immediate planning history shows multiple refusals and appeals, and a narrowing of the issues based on the previous inspector's decision before the council's committee eventually refused the application against officer advice on, I believe, geo-technical grounds. The assorted list of environmental and geological reports to support the appeal would have been enormous. Most importantly of all however the council withdrew its defence of the appeal, which led to a non-contested costs application. I said with purpose that the council will need 'valid' grounds. The council is not in line for costs if it sticks to the straight and narrow of subjective grounds and supports its reasons for refusal throughout the appeal process. So its chalk and cheese. That said, admittedly, the lawyers involved will probably still find a way to spend 100k or so even though it promises to be a relatively simple appeal case. The prize alone is worth a cautious approach.

Yes, I found it. They are not comparable. It's easy to see why. Anyone here who thinks its a foregone conclusion and the council would be in line for £400k costs is mistaken. And BTW I expect it to be approved (on balance) before anyone decides to misinterpret me. I'll be the least surprised perdon if its rejected.

£403k is a lot of money. So I wonder if it can be a direct comparison to the situation we have here - a relatively narow dispute over local roads and visual impact? If someone has got a link to the UJO Wressle 'debacle' then please share.

Ps. Half a million in costs!!?

Not even close. £20,000 is probably about the sum of the risk but that supposes the council's planning committee don't find a way to refuse it on valid grounds.